F IRE & SAF E TY

Are you responsible?

By Tom Welland, Fire Services Manager for Fireco

A

re those involved in the provision of fire protection at any level, be it complex or simple, aware that

they share liability for its suitability of purpose and its operation in the event of a fire and that any liability would therefore extend to future court action? With recent Association of

British Insurers (ABI) fire loss figures revealing a picture of worsening public fire protection in the UK with fire damage up by some 16% to £1.3b, representing a record high, questions are being raised as to whether the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, the CDM Regulations 2007 and Regulation 16B of the Buildings Act are working together to raise the installation of appropriate fire protection measures. The Construction, Design and (CDM)

Management

Regulations 2007, enforced by the Health and Safety Executive, concentrates on managing the risk and the health and safety of all those that use a building and those who maintain it.

So who is responsible?

If it is your responsibility to specify the materials and/or appoint a contractor, you are also required to ensure that they can prove competency for all fire protection materials used, plus all the installation and

commissioning work. And it’s no longer simply a duty of care or a voluntary code – it is a legal obligation. If you knowingly ignore

advice that leads to a failure in the fire performance of any element of installed fire protection within a building, you are likely to be found to be just as culpable as the deficient installer. You share liability for the provision of information required under Building Regulation 16B that tells the user of the building about the fire prevention measures provided in that building. Otherwise, the user cannot make an effective risk assessment under

the

Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. In the event of a fire and fatalities, a court will want to know the reasoning why the fire protection system was selected; the basis for selection of the installer; whether adequate time was provided for its installation and whether there was adequate liaison between the different parties to ensure it was installed correctly and if a suitable maintenance regime was in place. So, has the ‘light touch’ regulatory ethos of Fire Safety law resulted in some consultants, developers and property managers finding themselves out of their depth? Senior fire industry experts blame the lack of a national

audit procedure, claiming that the biggest challenges faced by the industry are apathy, ignorance and denial. We all recall the scene of the tragic fire at the Lakanal House apartment block in Peckham, South East London. Only after the tragedy were questions asked of Lambeth and other Local Authorities, to ascertain their legal requirement to undertake fire risk assessment.

The reality of ALARP

Was Lakanal House a one off, or

was it symptomatic of a much more deeply rooted problem? In the two weeks after the Lakanal House fire, Southwark Council signed off 120 fire risk assessments on its tower blocks, more than double the 54 FRAs signed off in the three months before the blaze. Without drawing prejudicial

conclusions, this heightened activity may well be an accurate reflection of the response of the public sector generally to the lessons drawn from this tragedy. However, specialists in fire risk assessment will recognise the blunt views of one risk assessor who commented: “Of course, the reality is that we continue to address the enforcement of safety legislation by applying the concept of

reasonably

practicable. At a time of tough budget constraints imposed on local authorities, we can expect to see duty-holders follow more and more the principle of reducing risk to levels As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP).” In the short term the emphasis on pragmatic practice is likely to be a more proportionate risk-assessed approach to potential hazards

26 BUILDING SERVICES & ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER MAY 2010

and the prioritisation of protection measures essential to life safety. This approach might mean, for example, deferring

sophisticated upgrades for automatic fire

If it is your responsibility to specify the materials and/or appoint a

contractor, you are also required to ensure that they can prove

competency for all fire protection materials used, plus all the installation and commissioning work.

And it’s no longer simply a duty of care or a voluntary code – it is a legal obligation

systems while insisting on more rigorous test and maintenance routines for existing fire protection installations.

Avoid the over- prescription trap

As a result of this uncertainty, there is the temptation to fall into the trap of over- prescription of fire safety

measures, at prohibitive cost to budgets. As high profile cases in the

press confirm, fire and rescue authorities nationally are showing an increasing desire to prosecute, so many professionals may feel that they are being bulldozed into hasty decisions of over-specification that they’ll come to regret. So it’s important to realise that there is often more than one way to achieve an acceptable level of fire safety in a building. One example of this is

Fireco’s System X wireless fire safety system that offers exceptional flexibility when managing a building's fire safety. System X uses Wi-Fi technology to communicate with an unlimited number of fire safety devices within a 100m range (subject to a site survey), so installation is quick and easy. System X is suitable for all environments including offices, hotels, restaurants and public areas, in particular where there is a requirement for fire doors to be held open legally. The innovative system is fully fail to safe and compliant with BS EN 1155 and BS 7273-4 and suitable for any category of fire door.

VISIT OUR WEBSITE: www.bsee.co.uk Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52